George Tiller shot.

User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Kathy Ellen »

hoppy;1198700 wrote: So, lets kill her. she's only a few years older than her babies will be if aborted. Three birds, one abortion, sort of. Hey, makes as much sense to me as killing a baby. Damn, I didn't think there were so many child haters on this board.


Oh stop it Hoppy...Don't you call me a "child hater".....How can you say this to me...:confused:
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

hoppy;1198697 wrote: What's next, 5 year old mothers?


That has, apparently, happened - snopes.com: Youngest Mother and Lina Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the girl concerned, though, seems to have been something of a freak of nature. Perhaps it would have been better if her mother had had an abortion?
User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Kathy Ellen »

[quote=Bill Sikes;1198704]That has, apparently, happened - snopes.com: Youngest Mother and Lina Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the girl concerned, though, seems to have been something of a freak of nature. Perhaps it would have been better if her mother had had an abortion?[/quote

Hello Bill,



I was so shocked a few years ago that my 3rd grade girls (8/9 yr. olds) had their period.



It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early......:(
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Kathy Ellen;1198705 wrote: It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early......: (


It seems to me to be quite sad for them - that the period of physical maturation is compressed so, with effects on the mental maturation process. I do wonder, though, whether it's really a new phenomenon, or a facet of modern information availability.
User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Kathy Ellen »

Bill Sikes;1198707 wrote: It seems to me to be quite sad for them - that the period of physical maturation is compressed so, with effects on the mental maturation process. I do wonder, though, whether it's really a new phenomenon, or a facet of modern information availability.


:confused: Bill, I'm not sure of what you're saying here.....



I do know that girls and boys are maturing earlier, and it's extremely scary to me. Geeze, it's heart-breaking to me that an 8 year old girl has her period and an 8 year old boy can get an erection.
User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by CARLA »

I started my period at 10 years old, my daughter started her period at 10 years old, and my grand daughter started her period at 10 years old. I think it is more a genetic factor in some families.

Abortion is legal in this county it is a women's right to have one. I wouldn't have one but I wouldn't take that right away from any women. Killing someone who preforms abortions proves nothing, nor does it resolve any issues. Abortions will still be preformed at that very clinic within a weeks time. There will never be agreement on this issue so all we can do is voice our opinions and be civil about it.

[QUOTE]I was so shocked a few years ago that my 3rd grade girls (8/9 yr. olds) had their period.

It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early......[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Kathy Ellen;1198703 wrote: Oh stop it Hoppy...Don't you call me a "child hater".....How can you say this to me...:confused:


I didn't mean you in particular. It's just that there are two things that sicken and disgust me and abortion is one of them. And I don't have the will power or sense to stay out of discussions about them. But then, looks like a few of you don't either.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Kathy Ellen;1198677 wrote: Hello Bryn and Chockie...



I do know about the explosion, but not the aftermath... Please post a link so I can enlighten myself. Thanks:-6


Try :-

The story of the poisoning of Seveso, Italy

or :-

Seveso disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically the company involved tried to cover up the leak that continued for many days resulting in very high contamination levels of the herbicide Dioxin. Despite the fact that dioxin exposure in early pregnancy was known to cause severe deformities the Pope, who has a fair amount of influence in Italy, refused to given dispensation for any of the women to have terminations.

I remember being horrified and sickened by the suffering those poor people went through.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Bill Sikes;1198693 wrote: No. Please add some further information regarding these matters.





Interesting. How many "deformed and mutilated children" were born (see request for further info. above) as a result, and what were their various deformations and mutilations? Also, what about people born who are "abnormal" for "ordinary" reasons? Those of different shape, or size, or with various bodily or mental shortcomings? Would you "off" them too, like the ones you implicitly advocate "offing" above due to their putative deformities as a result of chemical contamination?


I'm not in favour of "offing" anyone per-se but I am against the use of Papal authority and the full force of the Church being used in an attempt to remove the choice from the women affected.

Another link to add to those posted above :-

The story of the poisoning of Seveso, Italy
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

hoppy;1198700 wrote: So, lets kill her. she's only a few years older than her babies will be if aborted. Three birds, one abortion, sort of. Hey, makes as much sense to me as killing a baby. Damn, I didn't think there were so many child haters on this board.


You absolutely amaze me with the way you twist what is said - the concern is for the life of the 9 year old, not trying to kill her. If it is anyone it is you who are the child hater in that you care nothing for what happens to her, just what happens to the foetus the rape has caused.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Kathy Ellen;1198705 wrote:

That has, apparently, happened - snopes.com: Youngest Mother and Lina Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the girl concerned, though, seems to have been something of a freak of nature. Perhaps it would have been better if her mother had had an abortion?[/quote

Hello Bill,



I was so shocked a few years ago that my 3rd grade girls (8/9 yr. olds) had their period.



It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early......:(


Direct effect of the oestrogen like chemicals used in farming nowadays.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Kathy Ellen;1198714 wrote: : confused: Bill, I'm not sure of what you're saying here.....



I do know that girls and boys are maturing earlier, and it's extremely scary to me. Geeze, it's heart-breaking to me that an 8 year old girl has her period and an 8 year old boy can get an erection.


I meant that it's sad when children are thrust onto the stage of adulthood too quickly, without having the benefit of an extended time to mentally grow up and enjoy themselves.

I wondered whether this business of "the earlier development of children in modern times" is simply seen as such because there's more information exchange and publication, rather than that people are in fact maturing physically much earlier.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bryn Mawr;1198780 wrote:

Another link to add to those posted above :-

The story of the poisoning of Seveso, Italy


It doesn't say anything about the deformed and mutilated children you mentioned, or anything to do with the Church.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

hoppy;1198697 wrote: That a 9 year old would be pregnant. What's next, 5 year old mothers?

Are you not aware that some young girls can start menstruation as young as 8-9?
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

K.E.: It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early

Bryn Mawr;1198782 wrote: Direct effect of the oestrogen like chemicals used in farming nowadays.


I wonder what these chemicals are - do you know? I have heard that there are problems with oestrogen pollution of our water supplies, this pollution directly caused by the use of female contraceptive and HRT products.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

hoppy;1198682 wrote: If abortion is legal, then let's kill babies without hesitation.No one is suggesting that abortion should be mandatory,that's a ridiculous statement.

All I'm saying is that women should have a choice.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

hoppy;1198700 wrote: So, lets kill her. she's only a few years older than her babies will be if aborted. Three birds, one abortion, sort of. Hey, makes as much sense to me as killing a baby. Damn, I didn't think there were so many child haters on this board.

What a load of codswallop!!

This child was raped by her mongrel step-father[why aren't you incensed enough to want to kill HIM?!] and unfortunately,she was physically mature enough to become pregnant.

Then,the doctor stated that her little body couldn't cope with even ONE foetus,let alone TWO, growing inside her.

If she had been allowed to continue with the pregnancy,as the Catholic church wanted to happen,she would have died from the babies crushing her heart and lungs, well before they were viable and able to live outside of the womb.

If you agree with that same mentality,then you're the child hater,not me!
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Lots of posts, but I'll respond to this then read.Chockygirl;1198279 wrote: *snip*



I'm wondering where were you in the not too distant past when an unmarried women would have lost her job because of pregnancy?

Would you have cared for her and her child if her family had disowned her?

You honestly think this is justification to kill the baby?!? Really?

There's a chance that people you associate with or depend on are really bastards in disguise, so you'd better get an abortion just in case. :rolleyes: Give me a mf break. How's this:

There's a chance that people you associate with or depend on are really bastards in disguise, so you'd better think twice before risking pregnancy ... just in case.

Chockygirl wrote: Or,perhaps an unplanned pregnancy in a family where there are already too many children, or the main income earner has unexpectantly lost their job?Still more poor excuses. Ever heard of adoption? Thousands of barren couples ache to take care of babies whose birth parents can't or won't care for. Before your kneejerk response that adoption is abandoning a baby, recognize that that's your own cultural bias rather than real truth.



As for getting an abortion simply because the main income earner has unexpectantly lost their job, would you support killing a newborn for the same reason, or is that just unlucky timing? "Gee, hon, I hope if you're going to be fired it happens before this one pops out so that we can dispose of it legally."



Chockygirl wrote: Or rape:should a woman be forced to carry a child that was conceived in brutality,or by a member of her own family?

Finally, you've hit on an area that is understandably difficult. You ask my opinion. I would support the mother in whatever decision she arrives at, but I would not hold back my opinion or my counsel that the baby inside her is innocent of any of the evil that conceived him or her, and that bringing the baby into the world would make a positive outcome so great as to overwhelm that evil, rather than stacking just one more negative on the pile.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Bill Sikes;1198803 wrote: It doesn't say anything about the deformed and mutilated children you mentioned, or anything to do with the Church.

Bill,this link just touches on some of heated discussions at the time between doctors and the Catholic church in Italy.

There will be more details;I'll keep looking.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Bryn Mawr;1198780 wrote: I'm not in favour of "offing" anyone per-se but I am against the use of Papal authority and the full force of the Church being used in an attempt to remove the choice from the women affected.



Bryn,you've stated this so well as usual.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Chockygirl;1198810 wrote:

What a load of codswallop!!

This child was raped by her mongrel step-father[why aren't you incensed enough to want to kill HIM?!] and unfortunately,she was physically mature enough to become pregnant.

Then,the doctor stated that her little body couldn't cope with even ONE foetus,let alone TWO, growing inside her.

If she had been allowed to continue with the pregnancy,as the Catholic church wanted to happen,she would have died from the babies crushing her heart and lungs, well before they were viable and able to live outside of the womb.

If you agree with that same mentality,then you're the child hater,not me!


I am all in favor of killing jerks like the stepfather because this new liberal society we live in would just slap him on the wrist, if that. People scream about this stuff happening but no one wants to do anything serious about it. Tiller's killer got serious about his beliefs. Gotta give him that.

So what do we do about all this crap? We keep voting in the same BS do nothing politicians who make things legal that should never be. Who make evil things legal and once right things, wrong.

There. It's 7am, my blood pressure is already soaring and I ain't had me oatmeal yet. Are you happy?:(
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Bill Sikes;1198803 wrote: It doesn't say anything about the deformed and mutilated children you mentioned, or anything to do with the Church.


Did you try either of the other links I posted?

There is plenty of information out there showing the effects of dioxin poisoning of early term pregnancy, the number of women affected by the explosion and the edicts issued by the Church at the time.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Bill Sikes;1198806 wrote: K.E.: It's so upsetting that children are maturing so early



I wonder what these chemicals are - do you know? I have heard that there are problems with oestrogen pollution of our water supplies, this pollution directly caused by the use of female contraceptive and HRT products.


Try :-

Xeno-Oestrogens

A simple search on "Oestrogen like chemicals, farming" brings up lots of similar data.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bryn Mawr;1198975 wrote: Try :-

Xeno-Oestrogens

A simple search on "Oestrogen like chemicals, farming" brings up lots of similar data.


The first isn't terribly helpful. The search brings up results for stuff like Lindane, which, AFAIK, hasn't been used in the UK for some time. Which particular oestrogen-like chemicals had you in mind?
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bryn Mawr;1198972 wrote: Did you try either of the other links I posted?

There is plenty of information out there showing the effects of dioxin poisoning of early term pregnancy, the number of women affected by the explosion and the edicts issued by the Church at the time.


Yes.

I can't find anything about anything about the numbers of deformed and mutilated children you mentioned.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Bill Sikes;1199032 wrote: Yes.

I can't find anything about anything about the numbers of deformed and mutilated children you mentioned.


It's not just Italy, that was a particular horror because they knew what the results were going to be because of this.

Reuters AlertNet - FEATURE-Vietnam, U.S. set new tone on dioxin war legacy

Deformities continue to blight lives - World - www.theage.com.au

Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

posted by bill sikes

The first isn't terribly helpful. The search brings up results for stuff like Lindane, which, AFAIK, hasn't been used in the UK for some time. Which particular oestrogen-like chemicals had you in mind?




try this link

BBC NEWS | Health | Chemicals suspected in testicular cancer increase

posted by hoppy

I am all in favor of killing jerks like the stepfather because this new liberal society we live in would just slap him on the wrist, if that. People scream about this stuff happening but no one wants to do anything serious about it. Tiller's killer got serious about his beliefs. Gotta give him that.

So what do we do about all this crap? We keep voting in the same BS do nothing politicians who make things legal that should never be. Who make evil things legal and once right things, wrong.

There. It's 7am, my blood pressure is already soaring and I ain't had me oatmeal yet. Are you happy?


I'm fairly sure she's not one of the seven dwarfs.:D

The thing about living in a liberal society is it is tolerant of views like yours. Life in a theocracy is hellish. In a sexually repressed religious culture things like child abuse don't get talked about and even worse thanks to the warped concept of original sin I dare say some would blame the girl for tempting the stepfather. That's why strict muslims and some christian sects insist on women being "respectable". It's the the woman's fault if a man is tempted to adultery or rape-how often do you hear she must have been asking for it-rather than he is at fault because he had no control of his actions.

It seems to be only religion that makes people believe they have the right to dictate who has babies and when they can have them-the catholic church in particular seems to think they have the right to dictate to women that the choice is not theirs to make in the first place and to not only to those who happen to be catholic but try and prevent non-believers being able to get free access to contraceptives and prevent children getting the kind of information that might help prevent teenage pregnancy in the first place. If you deny people knowledge you deny their rights and freedom of choice. Personally I would deplore the need for abortion but it should be the choice of the women concerned and them alone.

It would appear thou shalt not kill is an optional commandment so long as it is done in the good lord's name. JC would be birling in his grave if he was still in it.

The killer of tiller will he go to heaven or hell? Not being facetious I'm just curious as to what you believe. presumably he goes to one or the other.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

gmc;1199167 wrote: It's not just Italy,


No, but that was specifically mentioned. I would like to find out the figures.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Bill Sikes;1199172 wrote: No, but that was specifically mentioned. I would like to find out the figures.


[Pathological and embryological studies on abortio...[Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1978] - PubMed Result

You're missing the point I think. They knew the likely consequences of the dioxin poisoning because of what was happening in vietnam but the church tried to prevent any of the women pregnant at the time having an abortion. The church lost the argument and the abortions were carried out.

If you had been there and it was your wife who had been pregnant at the time whose decision do you think it should have been- hers and yours or the church's?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

gmc;1199197 wrote: [Pathological and embryological studies on abortio...[Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1978] - PubMed Result

You're missing the point I think. They knew the likely consequences of the dioxin poisoning because of what was happening in vietnam but the church tried to prevent any of the women pregnant at the time having an abortion. The church lost the argument and the abortions were carried out.

If you had been there and it was your wife who had been pregnant at the time whose decision do you think it should have been- hers and yours or the church's?


Her's - first, last and always.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

gmc;1199197 wrote: (url)

You're missing the point I think.


I am trying to find out the extent of the problems alluded to (figures regarding deformed and mutilated children born as a result of the accident), without being buried in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage. So far, no luck on the figures.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

gmc;1199167 wrote:

The killer of tiller will he go to heaven or hell? Not being facetious I'm just curious as to what you believe. presumably he goes to one or the other.

I'd be very interested in the answer as well.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

gmc;1199167 wrote:

I'm fairly sure she's not one of the seven dwarfs.:D




:wah:
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Accountable;1198811 wrote:



Finally, you've hit on an area that is understandably difficult. You ask my opinion. I would support the mother in whatever decision she arrives at, but I would not hold back my opinion or my counsel that the baby inside her is innocent of any of the evil that conceived him or her, and that bringing the baby into the world would make a positive outcome so great as to overwhelm that evil, rather than stacking just one more negative on the pile.

Good to read that you would support the mother in whatever decision she has to make.

hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Chockygirl;1199284 wrote:

I'd be very interested in the answer as well.


Well, should I die before any of you, I'll try to find a way to let you know.:D
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Bill Sikes;1199208 wrote: I am trying to find out the extent of the problems alluded to (figures regarding deformed and mutilated children born as a result of the accident), without being buried in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage. So far, no luck on the figures.


Since you clearly didn't bother looking at the link I posted let me help

After the explosion accident on July 10, 1976 in Seveso (Italy), material from 30 interrupted pregnancies and from 4 spontaneous abortions was investigated by embryological and histomorphological studies. No indications of mutagenic, teratogenic or fetotoxic effects of TCDD could be found. The cases of spontaneous abortion, albeit more suspect for dioxin damage, showed different morphological alterations obviously due to a variety of causative factors independent of TCDD. On the other hand it is not possible to exclude entirely an embryotoxic effect of TCDD because in the majority of cases the fetal tissues were incomplete.




That means there were thirty abortions carried out and four natural terminations occurred. On other words thirty women chose not to take the risk associated with continuing. If you bother looking at the earlier links you will see what those risks were. The catholic church tried to stop those women going ahead with the abortions. Whether there was evidence of deformity or not is irrelevant the likelihood of there being if they had been carried to term was known.

The question is still the same-whose choice is it? The women or the church's. I would put it to you that you are dodging the question in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage:D

posted by hoppy

Well, should I die before any of you, I'll try to find a way to let you know.


If we don't hear from you can we take that as proof atheists are right after all?:sneaky:
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bill Sikes wrote:

I am trying to find out the extent of the problems alluded to (figures regarding deformed and mutilated children born as a result of the accident), without being buried in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage. So far, no luck on the figures.


gmc;1199447 wrote: Since you clearly didn't bother looking at the link I posted let me help


Don't be so silly, I read the stuff in your link, including the specific paragraph you quote:



gmc wrote:

After the explosion accident on July 10, 1976 in Seveso (Italy), material from 30 interrupted pregnancies and from 4 spontaneous abortions was investigated by embryological and histomorphological studies. No indications of mutagenic, teratogenic or fetotoxic effects of TCDD could be found. The cases of spontaneous abortion, albeit more suspect for dioxin damage, showed different morphological alterations obviously due to a variety of causative factors independent of TCDD. On the other hand it is not possible to exclude entirely an embryotoxic effect of TCDD because in the majority of cases the fetal tissues were incomplete.


gmc wrote: That means there were thirty abortions carried out and four natural terminations occurred. On other words thirty women chose not to take the risk associated with continuing. If you bother looking at the earlier links you will see what those risks were.


I did read the earlier links. Get a grip, man. You post rakes of "stuff", which tells of risks, numbers of abortions, etc. - but does not mention *any* information about these putative deformations and mutilations - in fact, the paragraph you're so hot on seems to indicate that none were detected at the time.



gmc;1199447 wrote: Whether there was evidence of deformity or not is irrelevant


It is not irrelevant, because it's *exactly the question I asked*, which has *still* not been answered.



gmc;1199447 wrote: If we don't hear from you can we take that as proof atheists are right after all?: sneaky:


And get your attributions sorted out while you're at it. The above was not in response to anything I've said.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

posted by bill sikes

And get your attributions sorted out while you're at it. The above was not in response to anything I've said.


You're quite correct it wasn't. if you look again you will note I was quoting hoppy and responding to that in what was meant to be a jocular aside.

posted by bill sikes

I did read the earlier links. Get a grip, man. You post rakes of "stuff", which tells of risks, numbers of abortions, etc. - but does not mention *any* information about these putative deformations and mutilations - in fact, the paragraph you're so hot on seems to indicate that none were detected at the time.


It doesn't just indicate it actually states none were found. it is a report on tests carried out on 34 foetuses from seveso after the event -30 from induced abortions and four naturally occurring ones.

No indications of mutagenic, teratogenic or fetotoxic effects of TCDD could be found.

How much clearer does it need to be for you?

The only way to have known for certain there would be any effect was to carry the foetus to birth. However, they knew from previous exposures to dioxin what the likely outcome might have been. (If you look at the earlier links you will see what i mean. )There were no deformed children born as a result of the dioxin contamination because the women concerned took the decision to terminate the pregnancy shortly after the actual exposure and probably before any effect had taken place.

Does that answer your question?

Which brings me back to the question you are still dodging.

Whose decision should it have been-the women carrying the foetus or the church's.

In this case the women made the choice and had the abortions despite strong opposition from the catholic church. If your pregnant wife had been one of those exposed what would you have done? Do you think anyone has the right to take away the right to make such a decision from the woman who is carrying the child?
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

gmc;1199455 wrote: Does that answer your question?


No, it's not even an answer to my question.



gmc;1199455 wrote: Which brings me back to the question you are still dodging.


Dodging? No. Just trying to get an answer to my question, whilst avoiding meaningless torrents of verbisge and side tracks like this one.



However, since you can't answer mine:

gmc;1199455 wrote: Whose decision should it have been-the women carrying the foetus or the church's.

In this case the women made the choice


You've answered your own question there, haven't you.



However, I'm sure that you want something from me, so - in my opinion, no-one goes about such things in complete isolation. Those concerned would have received the opinion of the Church, of doctors, an many others, I'm sure including their families and the fathers, reconciling those with their own possibly changing feelings on the matter. They (hopefully) took the decision without coercion either way. That's as it should be under the circumstances.



gmc;1199455 wrote: If your pregnant wife had been one of those exposed what would you have done?


See above.



gmc;1199455 wrote: Do you think anyone has the right to take away the right to make such a decision from the woman who is carrying the child?


Under "normal" circumstances, I don't just think it, I know it - you have only to briefly examine laws worldwide to see that this is indupitable.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Why did the foetus cross the road?

Because they moved the dumpster over there.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Let’s say I entered a lottery where the winner would receive a child from an adoption agency. Now let’s say that, even though I don’t want a child, the process of entering the lottery was so enjoyable I was willing to

take the risk for the sake of short term gratification.

Then one day my number comes up and I end up with a kid on my doorstep. Not wanting to have a kid, I call a certain person to come over and take care of it.

When this person arrives, he takes my baby, rips some of his limbs off with sharp instruments, burns him head toe with a powerful chemical, crushes his skull and discards him in the trash can one bloody chunk at a time,

all without using any pain killer.

What kind of person would butcher a child in such a way? And what kind of person would have it done to their own baby?



What’s described in this story is same thing physically and morally as getting an Abortion. It’s not about Religion, but facts. Our society is too educated to believe that an unborn baby is nothing more than a "ball of flesh and tissue".

Unborn children are human beings who deserve the same rights as anybody else.

A woman doesn’t have the right to terminate her pregnancy any more than I had the right to do what is described in the above story.



These unborn babies are being butchered for no other reason than to preserve a woman’s right to spread her legs without considering the possible consequences. I can’t think of a crime that is more selfish, brutal or heartless.

While some women get abortions out of pure ignorance, educated women who support abortion are nothing more than heartless fools who place greater value on their right to whore around than they would place on their own child.

Therefore, as I see it, these women are no better than Gorge Tiller, and Gorge Tiller was a butcher of children.

And he got exactly what he deserved.

Good riddance.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
User avatar
AussiePam
Posts: 9898
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by AussiePam »

I've always found it very hard to discuss issues which revolve around human ideas of right and wrong. I don't know how we have this kind of ingrained ethical sense - or whether we all have it, all have it the same, or if it is conditioned into us by our culture, our interpretation of methaphysical matters - our philosophy of life, the universe, everything.

Human constructed religions pronounce guidelines, human constructed legal systems lay down laws - but very often these guidelines reflect political and social expediency and sit with difficulty against that weird ingrained human idea of right and wrong.

We excuse many kinds of killing of one human by another - and yet there is widespread unease when humans kill other humans, for whatever reasons.

I'm a woman, and so can sympathise with a woman who does not wish to go ahead with a pregnancy, but I'm a mother and ache for the life lost. I've been with women who've made that awful decision, and broken their own hearts over it, and I know others who have seemed indifferent.

We live in an imperfect world where there are many levels of wrong - the little girl who was raped suffered an enormous wrong. I believe the mother who terminates a pregnancy does wrong. The murderer who shoots someone does wrong.

I think it's wrong to applaud the killing by one human being of another.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"

hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Erik;1199712 wrote: Let’s say I entered a lottery where the winner would receive a child from an adoption agency. Now let’s say that, even though I don’t want a child, the process of entering the lottery was so enjoyable I was willing to

take the risk for the sake of short term gratification.

Then one day my number comes up and I end up with a kid on my doorstep. Not wanting to have a kid, I call a certain person to come over and take care of it.

When this person arrives, he takes my baby, rips some of his limbs off with sharp instruments, burns him head toe with a powerful chemical, crushes his skull and discards him in the trash can one bloody chunk at a time,

all without using any pain killer.

What kind of person would butcher a child in such a way? And what kind of person would have it done to their own baby?



What’s described in this story is same thing physically and morally as getting an Abortion. It’s not about Religion, but facts. Our society is too educated to believe that an unborn baby is nothing more than a "ball of flesh and tissue".

Unborn children are human beings who deserve the same rights as anybody else.

A woman doesn’t have the right to terminate her pregnancy any more than I had the right to do what is described in the above story.



These unborn babies are being butchered for no other reason than to preserve a woman’s right to spread her legs without considering the possible consequences. I can’t think of a crime that is more selfish, brutal or heartless.

While some women get abortions out of pure ignorance, educated women who support abortion are nothing more than heartless fools who place greater value on their right to whore around than they would place on their own child.

Therefore, as I see it, these women are no better than Gorge Tiller, and Gorge Tiller was a butcher of children.

And he got exactly what he deserved.

Good riddance.


I like you already.
User avatar
Peg
Posts: 8673
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Peg »

Erik;1199712 wrote:

These unborn babies are being butchered for no other reason than to preserve a woman’s right to spread her legs without considering the possible consequences. I can’t think of a crime that is more selfish, brutal or heartless.

While some women get abortions out of pure ignorance, educated women who support abortion are nothing more than heartless fools who place greater value on their right to whore around than they would place on their own child.




Whoa! Let's hang on a minute here. While I'm not in favor of abortion, it takes two to tango there Erik. Their right to whore around? I think men play a role in this too.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1199712 wrote:

These unborn babies are being butchered for no other reason than to preserve a woman’s right to spread her legs without considering the possible consequences. I can’t think of a crime that is more selfish, brutal or heartless.



Oh,yes,and of course a child is conceived without any help from a sperm donor.:rolleyes:

Too bad if a woman is raped,I mean afterall some men just can't control their sexual urges and think any woman is his property to violate.

When I read posts such as yours,I'm reminded that misogyny is still alive and thriving in this world.
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by qsducks »

Peg;1199796 wrote: Whoa! Let's hang on a minute here. While I'm not in favor of abortion, it takes two to tango there Erik. Their right to whore around? I think men play a role in this too.


Chockygirl;1199824 wrote:

Oh,yes,and of course a child is conceived without any help from a sperm donor.:rolleyes:

Too bad if a woman is raped,I mean afterall some men just can't control their sexual urges and think any woman is his property to violate.

When I read posts such as yours,I'm reminded that misogyny is still alive and thriving in this world. Interesting to note as I was reading Erik's profile...where is he from/country? Doesn't say.

I have read every post on this thread from day one and respect everyone's views but this Erik's views are the most vile, sexist, racist views I've seen so far. I'm also prochoice...of course I would never have one but who am I to go & stand in front of a clinic & yell at women who are also there for just not for abortion but also to get contraception, etc. They offer more than abortion services.

The only thing I gleaned from Erik's post was a bit of hatred for women's rights/voices & a sheer sexist analogy of women in general.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

AussiePam;1199718 wrote: I've always found it very hard to discuss issues which revolve around human ideas of right and wrong. I don't know how we have this kind of ingrained ethical sense - or whether we all have it, all have it the same, or if it is conditioned into us by our culture, our interpretation of methaphysical matters - our philosophy of life, the universe, everything.



Human constructed religions pronounce guidelines, human constructed legal systems lay down laws - but very often these guidelines reflect political and social expediency and sit with difficulty against that weird ingrained human idea of right and wrong.



We excuse many kinds of killing of one human by another - and yet there is widespread unease when humans kill other humans, for whatever reasons.



I'm a woman, and so can sympathise with a woman who does not wish to go ahead with a pregnancy, but I'm a mother and ache for the life lost. I've been with women who've made that awful decision, and broken their own hearts over it, and I know others who have seemed indifferent.



We live in an imperfect world where there are many levels of wrong - the little girl who was raped suffered an enormous wrong. I believe the mother who terminates a pregnancy does wrong. The murderer who shoots someone does wrong.



I think it's wrong to applaud the killing by one human being of another.Well said, as always.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1199824 wrote:

Oh,yes,and of course a child is conceived without any help from a sperm donor.:rolleyes:

Too bad if a woman is raped,I mean afterall some men just can't control their sexual urges and think any woman is his property to violate.

When I read posts such as yours,I'm reminded that misogyny is still alive and thriving in this world.




How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Rape is terrible, but killing your unborn baby is much worse.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Victoria
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Victoria »

Sometimes I just wish so much it was men who got pregnant.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1199899 wrote: How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Aren't you fortunate that you can't be raped and impregnated.

I wonder if you'd change your tune then?:rolleyes:
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

posted by bill sikes

No, it's not even an answer to my question.


Did you or did you not ask

Yes.

I can't find anything about anything about the numbers of deformed and mutilated children you mentioned.


No, but that (Italy) was specifically mentioned. I would like to find out the figures.




I am trying to find out the extent of the problems alluded to (figures regarding deformed and mutilated children born as a result of the accident), without being buried in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage. So far, no luck on the figures.


What kind of answer were you expecting? There were no births because the women took the decision to abort, the tests carried out on the foetuses showed no sign of dioxin poisoning.

It doesn't just indicate it actually states none were found. it is a report on tests carried out on 34 foetuses from seveso after the event -30 from induced abortions and four naturally occurring ones.

No indications of mutagenic, teratogenic or fetotoxic effects of TCDD could be found.


What more do you need to know?

posted by bil sikes

You've answered your own question there, haven't you.


Actually no I was asking for your opinion. Personally I don't think it is an easy one to answer but the choice has to be left with the one carrying the foetus-as do you I see.

posted by bill sikes

Under "normal" circumstances, I don't just think it, I know it - you have only to briefly examine laws worldwide to see that this is indupitable.


Looking at it that way you are correct-it is also true that women are not given any choice in some countries as to whether they get pregnant or not. Perhaps the question does anyone have the moral authority or moral right to make those sort of decisions for them? Now that's a whole debate in itself. Clearly there are many who think women are not capable of choosing for themselves. I have this theory misogynists are actually scared of women and doubt their ability to compete with other males and have to dis-empower women and keep control in order to feel they have a chance of getting a mate.

Erik;1199899 wrote: How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Rape is terrible, but killing your unborn baby is much worse.


It's always been the "moral" guardians that have made bearing a bastard such a stigma and made it so difficult for single mothers to keep their babies. It was fine upstanding individuals that thought it was acceptable to fire single women that got themselves pregnant thus ensuring they had no choice in the matter and were happy to leave them and the child destitute-or go to a back street abortionist before it gets to that point. It's always been the moral guardians that have tried to prevent teenage girls getting access to contraceptives and keeping them ignorant of the facts of life and been only too willing to join in the universal condemnation when some "weak willed" teenager gets themselves pregnant-another sinner they can pray over. It's been the moral guardians that have made it acceptable for a man to walk away from his bastard child and keep his good name while the real criminal has to carry the child and deal with the consequences. original sin and all that clearly women are evil temptresses. It's the moral guardians that hold to the view someone who gets raped must somehow have provoked the attack, if a girl gets drunk and has sex it's her fault since she shows her lack of morals and self control but if a bloke gets in a drunken fight well it was just the drink and he's not really a violent person. If a girl gets her drink spiked and is raped (which seem to quite prevalent) and can't remember well she shouldn't have accepted a drink from a stranger in the first place or perhaps even have been in a bar in first place.

It's the canting hypocrisy and double standards surrounding the debate that makes a mockery of many of the pro-lifers arguments.

Now we have the fine upstanding moral guardians justifying terrorism and murder all in the name of the greater good as seen by them.

posted by erik

A woman doesn’t have the right to terminate her pregnancy any more than I had the right to do what is described in the above story.


Should she not also have the right to decide whether she gets pregnant or not? If that pregnancy is not a choice she has made then surely she has a right to terminate it once she knows about it.

If a teenage girl is pregnant because she has been denied free choice and access to contraceptives then I would put it to you that those who deny that choice are guilty of moral arrogance.

Return to “Abortion”